UKC

There's quite a bit of spin about how May wants these rights guaranteed fast but the nasty EU won't play ball. Let's get real.... one of the sticking points is likely to be the cut off point. May won't want it to be EU exit day as that would probably lead to another immigration spike. However, the UK government has no list of EU citizens in the UK. As there are no plans for a census of EU citizens here, it is pretty obvious May is not serious about a quick deal.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

FFS, we need to take back control and this begins with strong & stable gevernment to make Britain great again. The alternative is a coalition of chaos with their tax bombshell. Probably.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Am I the only one who sees this EU citizens rights things for what it is?

It, like everything else is a negotiating chip. I'm almost certain EU citizens will be allowed to stay in the UK, more or less as they are now, however it'll cost the EU something at the negotiating table to secure those rights.

If you just go and up front guarantee anything at this stage then it becomes worthless at the table, you've just given your opposition freebie.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


No, many do. However, there are those on these forums who believe the spin

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=663197&v=1#x8557068

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
You're not alone but, as with others, it's disappointing you see the EU as the opposition. A regression of 50+ years in thinking.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
No no no. The UK has to offer the EU the moon on a stick if it wants to trade fairly in the future Surely no one would be so mean to use real live human beings as bargaining chips.
The UK must get down on both knees and plead for clemency from that nice man Junker and his jolly friend Donald and anyone who thinks otherwise is a raving fascist bully boy with an IQ of 11 often found reading the Sun newspaper and eating raw bacon.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


I get your point, but I think there are certain points that clearly set the tone of negotiations

Firstly it's not that much of a bargaining chip, and secondly its a bit inhumane.

I would be perfectly happy if the price of doing the decent thing was a tiny bit less good deal. I like to think it's part of being British to put your money where your mouth is.

It really is as simple as us unilaterally guaranteeing EU citizens rights for those in the UK (probably require on a certain date). This does a few things.....

It makes a minuscule reduction in our leverage with the EU (so what)

It puts the onus on the EU to do the same or else look petty and inhumane to the rest of the world

It means less disruption for families and companies in the UK

In reply to Gone for good: you realize that if you live anywhere other than the UK it is not the EU that look like the aggressive side, and really the UK population are in another galaxy as to what they think reasonable.

Anyway after the glorious liberation you'll be getting a few hundred thousand red white and blue pensioners back ready to leap into action picking potatoes, cleaning hospital toilets and all those other essential jobs.

In reply to wbo:

Spouted parrot fashion a la J C Junker.

Anyway after the glorious liberation you'll be getting a few hundred thousand red white and blue pensioners back ready to leap into action picking potatoes, cleaning hospital toilets and all those other essential jobs.
Common sense on all fronts will prevail no doubt.

In reply to wbo:

They'll be all the shit jobs that poverty stricken Eastern Europeans do for us; for £7.50/hour and usually Zero hour contracts, who we can exploit?

Pay something like £12/hour, along with some rights, and even an unemployable scumbag 57 year old like me would go out to work.
We are supposedly the 6th or 7th richest country in the world, after all.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There's zillions of things that May can bring to the table to negotiate with. Human lives shouldn't be one of those things.

Wally

In reply to Bogwalloper:


She's hardly negotiating with people's lives is she? She is however putting a stake in the ground and making sure the EU know she won't be pushed around and can be difficult if she feels she needs to be. As a negotiating strategy I don't see a lot wrong with it albeit understand that some Europeans living and wanting to stay in the UK might not quite see it that way.
You can't please all the people all the time.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Ok, so I am a negotiating chip?? I have been living here since my student years for 23 years now (yikes) and have been part of this society as a legitimate EU member. I am married to a British person and have a child (born in Scotland) and have never wanted benefits/never been a burden on the NHS/ never asked for unemployment money...anything. I have paid my taxes, taught thousands of students and forged many international relationships for the Uni, I have paid my dental health care privately. How dare you say I am a bargaining chip? I am amazed/perplexed/etc?

In reply to Gone for good:

You should try living with the black cloud over your head.

Wally

In reply to Heike:

Personally I find this attitude disgusting.

I hope everything turns out ok for us but but like I say living with this doubt is horrible and the witch could end the doubt tomorrow if she wasn't trying to play the tough guy.

Wally

In reply to Gone for good:

She can be as difficult as she likes, in 2 years time we will be out of the EU wether we have a deal we like or not. If we leave with no deal it is going to be much worse for the U.K. than EU.

My other half is currently working out if she has to get a British passport to prove she can work in the U.K. in 2 years as she currently only has an Irish one.

In reply to Gone for good:


OK, so you're not too bothered about the welfare and family lives of non-British Europeans.

Is it Britishness which matters here? If so, what about the Brits cohabiting with or married to them, or the British children of EU immigrants?

In reply to wbo:

I live somewhere else and I realize that it´ s not the UK the aggressive side. The EU doesn´ t threaten only you, but Poland, Hungary, Czech and Austria not that long time ago as well (for various reasons)

In reply to skog:

We're all political pawns in the the great game of life whether we like it or not.

In reply to Gone for good:

Is that you saying you don't care?

In reply to Bogwalloper:


As could the EU with Brits living abroad, but the EU refuse to even discuss it until we cough up 100 Billion ( which has no legal grounds)

In reply to skog:

No I'm not saying that. As it happens I have many friends and colleagues that have come to the UK from various parts of Europe to work and live and I have been personally responsible for many of them coming to the UK in the first place.
What I am saying is that we can bitch and moan about how unfair it all is as much we like but that isn't going to change the outcome one iota because we have no control over what's happening. The die has been cast, how it will roll remains to be seen. I will hope for the best and get on with life in the meantime.

In reply to Jim C:


Not true, of course.

In reply to Gone for good:


If only we lived in some sort of democracy, with elections and all that stuff.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


If there was going to be an immigration spike it would have happened already. Anyone that keen to live in the UK is almost certainly already here.

Immigration is driven by jobs. As soon as we hit another recession and the number of jobs in the UK goes down, people will leave again. The only difference is that it will be harder for those who only have a UK passport to get employment in the EU.

In reply to skog:


May went over, pre A50 and offered to deal with the issue there and then, she was told no negotiations until the A50 was served, then after A50 , the EU excuse was no negotiations until the framework was agreed, at which point they said there will be monies to pay (the FT no less has reported this at 100 billion Euros. )

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

So what part is not true?

In reply to skog:

Well I'm afraid the ball started rolling in the direction of Brexit from 2010 onwards and 2, soon to be 3, general elections as well as a referendum have stated very clearly that Britain wants out. The election in June will probably reinforce that message with a resounding victory for the conservatives. Pesky nuisances those elections aren't they!!

In reply to Gone for good:

Brexit doesn't have to involve shafting current residents and their families, that's May's choice.

Other options exist, pesky as you may find them.

I think the Tories will win resoundingly in England, yes, though I suppose even that isn't absolutely certain.

In reply to Jim C:


False.

Wally

In reply to Jim C:

I can't access that article, but residency rights are set for the first phase of negotiations.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-d...

And May can, of course, guarantee such rights without the EU's agreement.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Which bit?

In reply to Jim C:
She wasn't talking in good faith, she had no thought through plan. It was a political gesture so the likes of you can feel good about pissing with peoples lives.

And yes we will owe some money. Hardly surprising.

In reply to skog:
Nobody has been shafted so far.

Other options exist, pesky as you may find them.
In my experience you start negotiations with a firm hand and give and take as the negotiations progress.
Neither the UK government or the EU have offered any concessions at this early stage.

I think the Tories will win resoundingly in England, yes, though I suppose even that isn't absolutely certain.

Nothing is certain other than death and taxes.

In reply to Gone for good:


The people we're negotiating with aren't idiots. They are fully aware that we can't afford to pack off EU nationals en masse. For a start it would kick another leg from under the wobbly stool that is British manufacturing.
Speaking dispassionately, the best use we can make of EU expats in negotiations, is to unilaterally give them all full rights to remain under UK law, thus taking the moral high ground, avoiding one area of squabbling and making Junker's next foray seem even more petty.

In reply to AlisonS:


I agree it's debatable but I think there are circumstances under which a spike could occur... a recession in an EU country while UK firms 'front load' amid fears of worker shortages.

The main thing is I don't think May will take the risk. Regardless, the government would have to somehow register EU nationals that are here for the cut-off, and there's not much talk of that. There's no quick deal to be done from either side.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm not suggesting they are idiots and of course there has to be some quid pro quo. Who will lead the way remains to be seen.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


The EU apparently have rules to deal with such spikes, and if you are deemed to have entered the country just to beat a deadline you will not be accepted under their rules. ( not UK rules)

In reply to Gone for good:

Gosh, you're full of platitudes this evening.


Not really true, anyone who can't guarantee to be able to stay has to make other plans.

In reply to MG:


So by the sounds of it you are happy to hand over 100 billion without a share of the assets ( that we were one of the main contributors to building) ?

If you don't mind I will stick with TM doing the negotiation rather than Corbyn , Farron, or yourself .

In reply to Jim C:


If the figure I've read of uk nett contribution of £500 billion since 73 is credible, then they can piss off with any further demands. Especially considering the financial shitstorm we're likely to experience over the next few years.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


The 100 billion payment calculated to the EU by the UK is false?
Or
That the legality of the 100 billion? ( or illegality)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-imposs...

In reply to Jim C:

Don't know where you get that idea. The figure is clearly to be determined. I don't think even the most paranoid delusional brexiteers think we will be handing over roads, bridge etc funded with EU money on exit.

In reply to MG:


Remember nothing built in the UK is funded with EU money, as we give twice as much as we get back as a nett contributer , so then all bridges , roads etc built are built with our own money that we then had to apply to get, and it came with EU strings of how to spend our OWN money, and they force us to stick a sign on it saying that it was EU money. That s certainly true of the countries that put in less than they get out, but not true of the UK. So of course we will not be handing anything back, but we will be asking for a share of the assets that the extra money we contributed was used to build.

In reply to Jim C:

That's more delusional nonsense. We paid in, the EU economy as a whole grew, we traded more, we benefited. We don't now take it all back because we are flouncing off. It's not a bank account.

In reply to Jim C:

It thinks it has got legal grounds, and so do most of the UK side for some part of that number. Also that number is open to calculation and negotiation. But Theresa May can't start negotiations because she's playing politics at home first.

Also , as you point out, it has been made very clear that you can't start negotiating a new trade deal till you've even confirmed you're leaving, and on what terms. That was hardly a surprise, but TM for once iced to be a bit of a chancer. These things only look wicked if you read uk newspapers. Another interpretation of events is that the UK is, to be blunt , f##king around. Those two years will fly by fast enough without this nonsense.

In reply to wbo:


Maybe part of that calculation and negotiation should be asking our EU neighbors to honour a few of their own financial commitments, starting with NATO and foreign aid.
Funny how vocal some players are when they've got their hands out, but nobody's home when the debt collectors call.

In reply to skog:

No one is talking about anyone getting shafted, apart from those on the remain side cheering on the EU over the UK. Let's look at potential hardline ideas;

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-09/brexit-battle-looms-...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-brexit-citizens-amnesty-th...


https://www.ft.com/content/2a792c9e-330c-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/donald-tusk-promises-deal-firmly...

Now I know that some here cannot stand to say anything good about the UK Government, but they may have heard the expression "it takes two to tango".

In reply to Big Ger:

How are those hardline? Seem quite reasonable and rational to me, except perhaps the 100b figure which appears high

In reply to MG:

I think the ECJ being in charge of EU citizens rights in the U.K. After brexit would be pretty contentious.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I feel for the current EU nationals resident in the UK, Heike and her like. The attitude of the UK is miserly.

Think also about UK emigrants, what kind of message is the UK sending? Lots of us that moved overseas *might* want to come back, possibly bringing some wealth, skills etc. How are we going to be treated, taxed, etc. why on Earth would I return to the UK...? (Apart from grit)

(Big ger, for once resist, this is not about you, and your idilic retirement to Cornwall)

LD

In reply to MG:


So if the EU demands "cast iron guarantees," before they will negotiate they are being "quite reasonable"?

In reply to Big Ger:

The EU has toughened its stance on the fate of three million EU citizens in the UK, demanding even for those with no proof of residency are allowed to stay after Brexit. The lead negotiator for Brussels insisted “red tape” must not be allowed to stand in the way of EU nationals remaining with full rights.

So we would have to keep every EU citizen no matter their residency status, or criminal activities. Aye right!

Most will be very welcome to stay, others we can't see the back of quick enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39855287

In reply to Stichtplate:


That is a very good point.

In reply to Big Ger:
Some of those are 'straw issues' put in there to be traded in the negotiations ( yes the EU are playing games with their claims , as the negotiators already admitted to the EU27 )

The one that jumps out is the courts adjudicating on human rights issue.
The EU know that the UK courts are very pro EU so that one will be traded off for something they really want/ hope to get.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


They wouldn't be "in charge", they would just offer a last judicial recourse for EU citizens in case any country violate their rights under the agreement we would have ratified.
It seems to be just practical common sense.

In reply to Heike:


From everything I have read almost everyone will be allowed to remain, but there are some we don't want, like people traffickers for example. We can't just agree to keep everyone and that includes criminals and people here illegally.

This will be one of the first issues dealt with.
(as soon as we agree to cough up to 100 Billion Euros )

In reply to RomTheBear:

No, it's not common sense. It's an attempt by the EU to maintain some control over the UK.
If we allow EU citizens to stay in the UK then they are subject to UK law.
Should the UK change it's mind in the future and decide to deport all EU nationals then it must be free to do so.
If EU nationals don't like the new arrangement they can return to their home countries.
If you are an EU national and have lived here for many years how bad would the new arrangement, whatever that is, have to be to force you to move?

In reply to baron:

If you've spent more than half your life here this is your home. You can't just say you were born in France now piss off!

In reply to RomTheBear:


So as we accept people from Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc, it is 'common sense' that we have to accept that their rights will also be adjudicated in their respective countries courts ?

In reply to baron:


If, for example, you were denied the right to healthcare on the NHS?

In reply to LakesWinter:
It's not the UK saying piss off.
It's 'your welcome to stay and enjoy the same rights as UK citizens' but no more.
And if you don't like it then you can piss off.

In reply to DougG:

Agreed, that would put a person in an impossible situation.
But is that what's being suggested?
If the UK is happy for EU nationals to stay and keep contributing to society it would be ridiculous to not offer them the same rights as other residents.

In reply to LakesWinter:

And no one ( in the UK Government) is saying that. However, all the signs are that they will be invited to stay with the SAME rights as UK citizens have.

I'm happy with that, if they are not happy, and they still want EU rights, they then choose to move to live in an EU country and not accept the invitation to stay in the UK with equal rights to UK citizens.

In reply to Jim C:

Completely different situation as there is no reciprocal agreement recognising mutual rights of citizens in these countries.
If there was, then we would have to accept that their rights are adjudicated in conformity with the international agreement that has been ratified.

I don't really see the problem here unless you are of the view that international agreement are just "for show" and need not to be enforced by any supra national jurisdiction, in which case you can close all the doors, say goodbye to WTO or the ICJ of the ECHR.

In reply to DougG:


"Access to the NHS is universal, but depending on your immigration status within the UK, you may be charged for accessing certain services. However, there are certain services that are free to everyone:

Treatment given in an accident and emergency (A&E) department – this does not include any further treatment following an admission to hospital; and

Treatment for certain infectious diseases (but for HIV/AIDS, only the first diagnosis and counselling that follows it are free); and

Compulsory psychiatric treatment; and

Family planning services – this does not include termination of pregnancy or infertility treatments.

Who will not be charged for accessing the NHS?

You will not be charged for any NHS treatment if you are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK, or if an exemption to charging applies.
‘Ordinarily Resident’

The full definition of ordinarily resident for the purposes of accessing NHS services can be found here and is summarized as follows:

“A person will be “ordinarily resident…” in the UK when that residence is lawful, adopted, voluntary, and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.”

In practice, you are normally ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK if you are living and working in the UK and are:

A British citizen

Naturalised within the UK

Settled within the UK (commonly referred to as holding Indefinite Leave to Remain)

In reply to Big Ger:


That just isn't true - there's the clear, unambiguous threat from the Prime Minister to EU nationals, many of whom have been long-term resident in the UK and have built lives here, that they could lose many of the rights that make living here viable (e.g. right to work, NHS access), if May doesn't get the deal she wants for Brexit.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Except that there will be no such reciprical agreement in place post Brexit, unless we agree one, so there will be nothing to enforce. Until then, the current agreement will be honoured.

In reply to skog:
>

Nonsense:she has said a deal is contingent on reciprocity on the issue of residence and rights associated, not on any other elements of a deal.

In reply to Postmanpat:

She also said that no deal is better than a bad deal.

In reply to skog:


True. But that was not in any way made as a threat on residency. It is, for example, quite possible that a reciprocal deal is reached on residency but not deal on anything else.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Beat me to it, and considering your earlier post with a comprehensive list evidencing the opposite of what Skog asserts ( or wishers ) to be true.

It's as if Skog ignores everything the Government says that actually indicates that they will give what he says he wants, and then makes up his own government position which has no basis in reality.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, I agree that it's quite possible, maybe even probable. But the threat is clear.

In reply to skog:


I think that it is more than a little disingenuous to regard a statement that the UK will not accept any and every deal that the EU tries to force upon us as a "threat" on the specific issue of residents' rights that the UK has offered to settle ASAP but been rebuffed.

In reply to Jim C:


Wishes? I wish the UK government would take the high ground and sort it, within their own power and scope. I'd be the first to praise them if they did.

The UK is the party removing itself from the EU, without which none of this would be happening, so it's really up to it to try to set the standard and tone. If the UK unilaterally guaranteed rights for residents here and the countries of the EU did not reciprocate, it would be them I was criticising.

There have been some positive things said by the UK government; I'm in no way ignoring them and I'm hopeful something satisfactory will be sorted. But there are plenty of indications and direct statements to the contrary, and I can't -afford- to ignore those.

You seem to be taking the rosiest possible spin on everything which is said, ignoring all the threats and negatives. I'm sure they're easy to dismiss when they don't actually affect you - and if the worst does happen, you can just shrug and say it's a bit of a shame, not what you wanted at all - but it's a bit different when it's actually your own family being threatened.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Where is that offer the UK supposedly made ? Let us see it.

Let's be honest for a second, T May thought she could get away with it with a meangliness fudge for a political quick win and they said no.

The EC has told us what they would like to see in some details in such a reciprocal deal, basically no more than a seamless continuation of the same rights, that seems entirely reasonable.
So far we've heard absolutely nothing from the UK gov on what they would like to see. As a matter of fact they don't seem to have an overall brexit vision or strategy whatsoever.
They spend more time campaigning for their GE.

In reply to baron:


How is that supposed to work. If someone has been living in the UK for 20 years and has two kids who are British citizens at school in the UK is the UK government supposed to be allowed to just tell them to piss off on a whim. They've been paying their taxes and making pension contributions and bought a house in the UK but the UK can just kick them out back to a country where they have nowhere to live, no pension and no health insurance? That's pretty much theft - the UK would have been collecting tax and National Insurance for years based on the promise of services it was arbitrarily deciding not to provide.

EU nationals have been exercising citizens rights within the EU at the moment, just like a US citizen from New York that goes and works in Florida is exercising citizens rights. The fair thing would be to offer them dual UK-EU citizenship without any conditions except residence before Article 50 was invoked.

The thing that actually worries the Tories is that if 3 million EU citizens get UK citizenship they will vote for a pro-EU party.

In reply to Lurking Dave:

I do, I can understand their worry, and I have family who are EU citizens here.

Like I said in my OP there's a lot of spin, mostly from the now infamously detail-lite pro-leavers.

There is an informal agreement in principle, as both side have stated existing rights should remain for residents here and in the EU. However, as this article points out

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-...

the UK has no way of establishing who was here when. There are means for the UK to develop one, but it is a mammoth administrative task, and it does not appear to have started yet. The EU is right to hold off until the UK announces how it intends to compile this register, which is of course only something the UK can do.

I would appeal to remainers to now focus on the details and try to mitigate negative effects of leaving.... as for anti-eu pro-leavers, they're off on one portraying Merkel, Junker and Tusk as with pantomime villains, and May as Boudica, don't think there'll be any sense from them a while.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I suppose it would be, but it was actually a statement that the UK would walk away from the entire deal if it was considered to be a bad one.

Like it or not, saying the UK won't guarantee rights for EU residents unless it's reciprocated is also a pretty clear threat, if you're on the receiving end of it.

I have no ablility to make sure that, for example, Spain will guarantee to keep our ex-pats, but if they don't, my family could have to leave the UK. Are you really saying I shouldn't consider that a threat?

In reply to skog:

>
From the EU? Probably.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ha, did you really just post that after trying to say I was being disingenious?!

In reply to skog:


Seriously, do you honestly think that any PM is going to give up the rights of UK citizens in the EU unilaterally, let alone in the light of the Junckers/Selmayr attitude to negotiations?

Well, come to think of it Jezzer might just be that stupid.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I wasn't actually suggesting or proposing that the UK should or would deport EU nationals in the future but using it as the most extreme example that I could think of as to the extent of the power that the UK government could exert. Rom the Bear would have the European Court being able to limit this power whereas I think that the UK laws should be able to have complete control over anybody who lives here.
I'm sorry I didn't state my case more clearly.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it - and I think this antagonistic approach is less likely to get good results, but you may well disagree about that - it remains a clear threat, from the UK PM, to EU residents here.

I can't afford to be as theoretical about this as you can!

In reply to baron:

May I point out that it is the UK that insisted on a reciprocal deal. If the UK wants to guarantee the rights of EU citizens without an enforceable reciprocal agreement, the UK can do that unilaterally. Of course that would also mean they would have no way to guarantee other countries do the same for Brits.

There are two choices, either we have a reciprocal deal which means obviously a superior authority to make sure the recripocal deal is respected and enforced equally, or individual countries do whatever they want however they like it.

In reply to skog:


But it's not her threat. It's a "threat" which is a function of the EU refusing to defuse the situation.

In reply to Big Ger:

Fine by me. Unlike you I actually value those living and contributing to the UK and don't want them seen as negotiating chips

In reply to Postmanpat:

Can you tell us how this us the case ? It would be pretty easy for the UK government to agree in principle that they would accept that the rights of EU citizens already in the UK remain the same after brexit, which is essentially what the EC suggests, and vice versa. Or at least start to engage on the issue if they want to reduce those rights.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It is entirely possible that may be the case, though as we aren't privvy to the detail we can't actually know. I'm not at all sure what was being offered or rejected.


This is definitely not true - it is her threat, from her own mouth, whether or not you think it is justified.

In reply to skog:

Despite voting to leave the EU most leavers don't want to see mass deportation of non U.K. nationals.
What most leavers want is for the UK government to have control over who comes into the U.K. and for any immigration to be sustainable. Then, if immigration is above a sustainable level the U.K. government will be responsible, more accountable and not able to blame the EU as it does presently.
There is no stomach amongst most leavers to see people who have lived here lawfully being forcibly evicted from the UK.

In reply to baron:

This may well be true, but "most leavers" aren't involved in the negotiations in any way, and if they vote to return the current government they are choosing to support its current stance and tactics.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Probably not, callousness is hardly rare.


Opposition. Says it all really.
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:


The EU countries are bound by EU human rights law and the European Court. There are rights to family life guarantees that EU countries can't simply override with national laws.

The UK does not even have a written constitution, EU human rights law and the jurisdiction of European courts were an important limitation on the power of parliament.

In reply to Gone for good:


It hasn't thus far.

That said, I still hold out hope we'll come to our senses in time.
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:

EU citizens won't get the same rights they enjoy now after Brexit.
What they'll probably get are the same rights as UK citizens (although their voting rights could be different) .
The EU and some EU nationals won't be happy with this but it's the best you'll get.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I thought the UK plan was to adopt all eu legislation, then over time whittle it down. So anything that is eu now, will become UK unless reversed, repealed etc.. at a later date?

In reply to Heike:

Yes, you're a negotiating chip, or should I say your right to live in this country is a negotiating chip. Just as for the EU the rights of UK citizens living in Europe is a negotiating chip, or have they already without any requirements already guaranteed their rights up front?

It's nothing special, and there is no need to worry about it. You'll get your rights, but we'll get something in return for granting them, or do you think your rights are of no value to the rest of the EU and they should expect them given for free?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Parliament and whatever devolved government you live under have the powers to make and change UK laws and UK courts uphold those laws.
Will the U.K. still not sign up to the ECHR?
There is no need for any other court.

In reply to Gone for good:


There's nothing clear about the referendum result other than that Britain's electorate is divided on the issue, it's a weak mandate for even minor change let alone the havoc we're about to wreak.
jk

In reply to Jim C:


Good for them. I wish our government had the backbone to stand up for us like this and do the right thing.
jk

In reply to baron:

Stop telling porky pies.

Getting the same rights as UK citizens is more than what the EC is asking for !

The only thing they are asking for is that they essentially continue to enjoy the same rights as they currently do. And these rights are currently inferior to the rights of UK citizens.

In reply to jkarran:


3 consecutive Tory Governments is mandate enough even if the first was a coalition.

In reply to MG:


Not so much a regression in thinking, merely practicality.
The EU is on one side of this negotiation, the UK on the other.
Therefore the 2 sides are in opposition.
If both sides agreed on everything then they wouldn't be in opposition, and we (the UK) wouldn't be leaving the EU.

In reply to baron:


We'll see what happens. My guess is it will all look very different in a year because the EU are about to stomp all over the Brexiter's dreams. Varoufakis had it exactly right with his description of how the EU will handle negotiations and it isn't malice it is just the way a group of 27 nations has to operate. The logical end point is going to be staying in something very close to the EEA for at least 5 years because the alternative of having no trade deals with anyone for a period of years while new ones are negotiated would devastate the economy.

In reply to fred99:


We can disagree and still compromise. That was the framework for the last 50 years. Now we're back to bargaining, coercion, and threats. One could say it's a big regression.

In reply to baron:


This is beneath you. Consider the implications of what you're saying.
jk

In reply to fred99:


Yes, it's a tautology. We could equally say: if we weren't leaving the EU we wouldn't be in opposition to it. ... What an utterly stupid position to put ourselves in!

In reply to Gone for good:


Sorry, was that 3 tory governments coming to power on a leave the EU ticket? Or would that be three tory governments riven by infighting over Europe caused by about 10% of their MPs?
jk

In reply to Gone for good:


Not really, if you consider that the previous Tory manifestos included a strong belief in the value of EU membership:
"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union"

In reply to tony:


Yes, that was 2015. A bit more lukewarm in 2010, but still broadly pro-Europe: "We will be positive members of the European Union but we are clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK without the British people’s consent. … We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its Member States."

In reply to fred99:

That's a pathetic, childish view of negotiations. For a good result, you look for a solution that benefits everyone, not a "win" against and "opposition".

In reply to jkarran:

There is no doubt the only reason Cameron won a majority was because he committed to an in out referendum. May will win an increased majority and that will be her mandate to follow through with Brexit and all that entails.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


All we'll get is reciprocal right for UK citizens in Europe. They may be fewer in number but they are vulnerable, most of the OAPs in Spain could not pass a Spanish citizenship test.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Something I'm not clear on - is that even actually something the EU can grant?

Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?

In reply to skog:

Yes, it is. So every individual EU countries will have to ratify a new treaty, as well as the EU parliament. This could be part of the withdrawal agreement.
So far all EU-27 seem to have a common position on the issue so it shouldn't be a problem. Only thing left is for the UK to agree, or at least start meaningful negotiations...

In reply to Gone for good:

That's a bold claim, I seem to remember a lot more than that going on in 2015 but then my blinkered fixations are probably different to yours.


Maybe, maybe not but if so that gives you one near-as-damnit 50:50 referendum and one of the three governments you claim have a strong mandate. 2010 they required and formed a pro EU coalition, 2015 they scraped in with a tiny majority and a PM and front bench who predominantly campaigning for remain. Both 'wins' secured with ~1/3 of the popular vote. Strong mandate for sweeping change? Pull the other one!
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Have you forgot about the emergence of UKIP?
That's why Cameron promised a referendum because he was terrified of the increased vote share UKIP were attracting as well as wanting to silence the Eurosceptics in his own party.

The Tories have always been lukewarm about Europe and Cameron's referendum gamble backfired spectacularly and here we are looking at the Tories winning an increased majority partly because they are fully committed to Brexit and partly because there is no credible alternative.

The country has been heading in this direction for over a decade as a result of Labour's irresponsible immigration polices.

You reap what you sow.

In reply to RomTheBear:
If that's correct, May was either very badly informed, or deliberately asking EU figures for something she knew they couldn't do, or the reporting is wildly incorrect or dishonest regarding what she asked for.

In reply to Gone for good:


UKIP with their occasional 1 MP? Not sure how that relates to your claim 2, possibly soon 3 successive tory governments (one of which won on an explicitly pro EU ticket) indicate a strong mandate for leaving despite the evenly split referendum on that actual issue.


So you say. Others will beg to differ, probably not enough but we'll see.


The Polish and Romainian influx has certainly hardened opinions but I doubt the social harm done is actually that significant and it could easily have been offset by domestic policy choices the coalition and Conservatives failed to make. Blaming Labour for the Conservatives underfunding local services in areas undergoing rapid demographic change which is what most of the valid complaints boil down to is a bit rich IMO.

In reply to skog:

Ordinarily yes.


The EU has suggesting that the only way it can do this is through the ECJ, which the UK would have to engage with. Of course that sends the Brexiteers into another strop but if they want an agreement which covers all UK citizens in the EU, it's the only way.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Ah, that's what the ECJ stuff was about, thanks!

In reply to MG:


It's not my view of normal negotiations, but I'm looking at the reality of life, and this particular matter is getting very messy.
Spain have brought in claims on Gibraltar - what's that really got to do with the main matter.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I agree.
And for the record I voted Remain.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It is.
The big question is whether it's just showmanship to put the other side on the back foot, or a precursor to some nastiness when they actually get to sit around the table.
I'm not very hopeful however, particularly when Spain stick Gibraltar onto the table and get backed up on it.

In reply to fred99:

The EU, no doubt influenced by Spain, have correctly flagged the issue up. Rather than the EU bringing it up, it was a notable omission from May's statement. Modern Gibraltar is a result of EU membership, if it get's the same deal as the UK life would change drastically for them... some bright spark at the EU realised this and included it.

Check out the referendum result from Gibraltar, they know it.

In reply to skog:


The EU, since they basically agree with each other on the issue, could accept an agreement in principle. Instead they refuse to discuss the issue, refuse to discuss anything unless the UK accedes to successively inflated financial demands and raise the temperature on multiple fronts whilst undermining good faith by leaking their version of private meetings.

Mr.V predicted all this last year, "you can check out but you can never leave".

In reply to Postmanpat:

This appears to contradict what Mike Stretford said above. Do you believe him to be incorrect?


The simplest explanation I can think of for these reports of May making proposals and being rejected (being charitable about what May's proposals actually were), is that she suggested something, and the people she suggested it to pointed out that they actually -couldn't- guarantee it, and it would have to go to negotiations because each country would have to agree individually.

In reply to skog:

I don't understand what he is saying or his source. Clearly Merkel couldn't commit for the whole EU although she could have indicated her wish. Is he saying the UK should be negotiating with the ECJ rather than the EU?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No 'he' is not. Your post-referendum subscription the the Daily Express appears to have affected your comprehension, and manners :0)

In reply to RomTheBear:

They, the EU, want a right to determine what happens to EU citizens, in the UK.
That's not for them to decide, it's for the UK and the ECHR.

In reply to jkarran:
See my reply at 10.40 today for, hopefully, a clearer indication of what I was trying to say in my cumsily worded post.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are you sure she didn't? As far as I understand it, her 'rejection' was to say it had been unanimously agreed by all remaining EU countries that it couldn't be discussed until article 50 was invoked; that meeting was before it had been.

In reply to baron:


Well I still disagree with you about where I would prefer the last line of defense against abuse of my (and others) rights to lie but thanks for the clarification, I had missed it.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

She doen't need to, the bloke who's job it is to say such things has said it

http://www.scotsman.com/news/rights-for-eu-citizens-in-uk-number-one-priori...

you seem to have got citizens rights deal and a trade agreement mixed up.

As for the role of the ECJ..... the UK wants rights for UK citizens in the EU. That will have to be enshrined in EU law or it's worthless. I trust you can work out the role of the ECJ there.

In reply to Jim C:



No its a totally spurious point. We are negotiating with the EU, not individual countries. Even if we were negotiating with individual countries the 2% NATO figure is a guideline, not a commitment.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


And Junckers has refused to sit down and bash out the framework of a deal on the topic when asked..

Are you saying that the role of the ECJ in administering the law means that the EU cannot negotiate the terms of an agreement?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Nope.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


So what was Skog referring to that I replied to saying that I didn't understand or know your source?

In reply to skog:

And since then? Nought except increasingly aggressive demands.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-theresa-may-pre-brexit-expats-plan-nixed-...

"Waiting for the pain

The Germans argue it makes more sense for the EU to keep the trade-off on British expatriates’ rights up its sleeve as a sweetener during the most painful phase of the negotiations, likely to occur in 2018. It was naïve for the British to expect the issue could be taken out of the overall context. By then, Britain could be gripped by a Brexit-induced slowdown, with foreign financial firms moving jobs from the City to the eurozone and inflation due to the pound’s slide eating into living standards.

They are convinced that Britain will only negotiate realistically once the weakness of its hand has sunk in with the Conservative leadership and pro-Brexit voters, many of whom maintain that Europe needs the U.K. as much as the U.K. needs the EU, and seem to believe that Britain can continue to enjoy the key benefits of the single market without the constraints.

Seen through that prism, cutting a quick deal on citizens’ rights might have perpetuated illusions in London that this is a negotiation among equals, rather than a lopsided situation in which Britain, having voted to leave the club, is dependent on the goodwill of all 27 former EU partners."

Whose using them as political pawns then??

In reply to baron:

No, what they want is that the rights of EU citizens are determined by a reciprocal agreement.
This is what the UK gov say they wanted.

But it sounds to me that what you want is no reciprocal agreement, and what happens to EU citizens is decided individually by each country.
I'm not too sure why you would want the fate of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU to be perpetually at the mercy of the goodwill of any individual country instead of having a sustainable, reciprocal, fair, long term agreement. What on earth have they done to you ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Maybe my OP, maybe my point about the ECJ, if the latter it was you who went on to make a daft assumption, and I can't help you with that.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I didn't make an assumption.I asked for clarification: which I'm still awaiting.

In reply to Postmanpat:
This politico opinion piece is easily refuted by the fact that the EC is suggesting to sort out the fate of eu citizens first and foremost. They've made clear and fair proposals. We haven't heard anything from the UK gov.

They are too busy campaigning along the lines of "if you don't vote Tory you're a traitor on the side of evil Brussels, and everything that goes wrong is Brussels' fault "

In reply to Postmanpat:


You said the EU refused to discuss it; Mike said the EU suggested it could be dealt with through the ECJ.

In reply to skog:
Ok.

Pat has consistently claimed the EU won't discus it, which is rubbish. Meaningful discussion will start after the UK election.

My point about the ECJ (and other peoples) is that post-Brexit adjudication will be a sticking point during the negotiations. The existing organisation is the ECJ but Brexiteers are likely to have a problem with that. It's another example of why any 'quick' pre-article 50 deal would have been worthless, and was sensibly avoided.

Edit: Adjudication subbed for arbitration.

In reply to RomTheBear:
You have far less faith in the UK and individual european governments to uphold agreed rights than I do.
What have individual governments done to deserve your mistrust?

In reply to jkarran:


Strong is the force with this one.......

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Thanks Mike.

In reply to skog:


Ditto. Needless to say, I'm way beyond angry...

In reply to Mike Stretford:

There are two excellent articles in the FT on this:

the politics (who offered what)
https://www.ft.com/content/d3491050-30be-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

and the law (what are the issues)
https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f

In reply to baron:

No, I have no faith whatsoever in the UK for upholding the right of EU migrants. The UK was found to be in breach of the existing rules already many times. I don't know about other EU countries.
Just look at how non-EU migrants are treated, many are deported with no judicial recourse whatsoever, some are put in admistrative detention without the right to a trial, regardless of whether the decision was legal or not. In many immigration cases the only reason there is a right to judicial recourse is simply because the UK is part of the ECHR, again a supra national court. This has tremendous value.

In any case, I don't see the problem, if the UK plans to abide by the terms of a reciprocal agreement, why refuse a supra national authority whose job would be to make sure that it indeed does and act as a final escalation point to arbitrate any disputes ?This doesn't have to be the ECJ btw.

In reply to skog:

I don't think Mike did say that. Did you Mike?

He is saying that the ECJ should be the ultimate judge of whether whatever agreement is reached is being properly administered and deal with appeals etc under those rules.
Nothing to do with who negotiates with who at all.

As Rom has pointed out, it doesn't have to be the ECJ. The logical thing to do is establish a new independent institution.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I've never said that they will never discuss it. I have said that they refuse to discuss it before June (despite David Green's claims to the contrary , June seems to have previously regarded by the EU, in the form of Barnier,as the start date for negotiations and that is why May's election is not actually delaying the start of negotiations.) They also refuse to discuss it before the financial settlement has been agreed.

May suggested to Juncker that the issue be dealt with by June. He could, of course, have agreed to start talking with the target of reaching a generlised agreement asap, whilst noting the difficulties of doing so. But instead he described her as "deluded".
These are not the words or actions of a man who wants to put the residents at ease.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Mike Stretford - on 13:03 Wed
...
The EU has suggesting that the only way it can do this is through the ECJ, which the UK would have to engage with.

In reply to skog:


We seem to be talking at cross purposes:

you seem to think that Mike is saying the UK will negotiate terms on residents' rights etc through or with the ECJ.

I think he is saying that the ECJ will ultimately have to adminster any agreement and that this is likely to be an issue of dispute in the negotiations (between the UK and the EU.)

That he says "My point about the ECJ (and other peoples) is that post-Brexit adjudication will be a sticking point during the negotiations."
rather confirms my view. But only he can say.

Anyway, the UK will not be negotiating terms with or through the ECJ. It will be negotiating with the EU's negotiating team.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You have no faith in the UK courts upholding migrants rights ?
I think the UK courts / judiciary are rather pro EU, not much to worry about there.

In reply to Jim C:


No, I'm talking about the UK governement, present and future.
As for the courts, I have faith in them, but in many cases migrants don't have access to the justice system. As I explained, there is no judicial recourse in the UK for most immigration decision.
I would like to make sure this us the case.

In reply to Jim C:


To a large extent the problem has been that the system either doesn't allow access to the Courts, or the Home Office delays and diverts to such an extent that access to the Courts is denied.
A fair and just system needs to be created, not least by a revolution in the workings of the Home Office (fat chance).

In reply to RomTheBear:

Interesting viewpoint here on the problems potentially facing UK people working in the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/the-brexit-trap-thats-clos...
not the usual Spanish enclaves

In reply to Removed User:

Yes, I hope they get a deal whereby UK citizens resident in the EU prior brexit will still be able to move between EU countries as they used to. Otherwise many people will suffer, especially those working cross borders or with family cross borders. Many people for example live in France and work in Belgium or live in Poland and work in Germany etc etc... I think this is what the EC wants to achieve though, full continuity of exactly the same rights. Not sure the UK wants to play ball though.

Anyway all of this is a total joke, there was nothing wrong with freedom of movement in the first place, the ideal solution would be that nothing changes, I don't really see what anybody has to gain from limiting what was a very beneficial freedom. All off this is driven by hate, identity politics, and a retarded Brexit decision. I frankly don't see what anybody has to gain from this insanity.

In reply to RomTheBear:
No argument from me, it's thrown my plans onto hold.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That is only a logical idea if you are as deluded as Theresa May about how the EU negotiates these things. Why can't the Brexiter's grasp that a coalition of 27 countries with power split across the component nations, a parliament, a bureaucracy and a court and with tens of different trade deals it needs to maintain compatibility with is not interested in or capable of cutting a special deal for one medium sized country.

The EU already has a court for adjudicating these things and the authority of that court is written into all its agreements. If it makes an exception for the UK it would create a precedent that would weaken its position in every other negotiation.

This isn't like a customer negotiating with a car dealer it is like an immigrant trying to negotiate with the Home Office after they've been given a date to leave the country.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's logical if both parties actually want to reach a compromise that protects the rights of their respective citizens. But that raises an obvious question...

The nature of any deal is that the EU is "cutting a special deal for one medium sized country. " or does the ECJ's remit extend to, for example, Canada?

If only we could move some ministries to Scotland all would be fine, if they could get past the new Nazi uniformed border guards

In reply to RomTheBear:

The brief thrill of power as they kick the apple cart over. Of course it was their own apples they kicked into the shit but still...
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes that's right. Due to Skogs original question "Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?" I may have assumed he was more familiar with international law than he is, as adjudication really is at the crux of that question. Two UN member states can adjudicate through the ICJ but of course the EU is not state, not a UN member.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>.As Rom has pointed out, it doesn't have to be the ECJ. The logical thing to do is establish a new independent institution.

That's like calling a vegetable by another name so a toddler will eat it... is that where we're at?

It's not comparable with Canada, what we (the UK and the EU) are trying to achieve is unique, and if we really want to protect our citizens will involve accepting some limited jurisdiction of a European body, whatever it's call.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Comes back to my OP....that is obviously spin as the UK government has made no preparations for such talks. It's the UK that is leaving the EU, it's up to the UK to make some sort of declaration of what it considers a resident EU citizen resident in the UK, of how it intends to collect that information, but there's been nothing.

If May was serious about a quick deal, there'd be some sort of simple and civilised census underway of who is here, but again, nothing. Indeed, the reports are it's got harder for concerned EU nationals to apply for the Right of Residence they are entitled to after 5 years.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The ECJ remit will partly extend to Canada. That was the main concession that was made in order for the Wallon parliament to stop blocking CETA.
More specifically, the investor court system set up to arbitrate CETA will have to seek the opinion of the ECJ to ensure decisions made by the ICS are compatible with the EU treaties.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
>
You cannot know what preparations for talks have been made and it is incumbent on both parties to sit down and talk, not to make unilateral declarations. It is the EU that has refused to do so. You can lead a horse to water....

The HO has advised EU nationals not to apply because they cannot deal with the caseload and because (they say) it is not necessary.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Against the advice of all immigration lawyers.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes, exactly, that's the stupidity of brexit for you.
We'll be basically replacing democratic, legitimate institutions we were fully part of, by unnacountable and opaque "independent" arbitration courts, and discussions behind closed doors, or, given the power balance, simply accept the remit of the ECJ through the backdoor.

A point that me and others have made repeatedly on these forums prior the brexit vote, but I guess if you have to explain things you've already lost.
The problem is that this whole thing was based on the blatant lie that we could get nice deals with the whole world without accepting any devolution of sovereignty. That is just not how it works.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This isn't a negotiation between two parties, its a negotiation between one party and a group of 27 parties. It is really hard for a group of 27 parties to compromise because it takes a long time to get internal consensus. If you want to deal with an organisation the size of the EU you need to follow their processes.



The nature of the deals are variations on templates and it takes vast amounts of time to agree those variations.


>If only we could move some ministries to Scotland all would be fine, if they could get past the new Nazi uniformed border guards

If the UK moved some of the agencies of government out of London things would be better. Not fine, but better. And the border guards aren't Nazi uniformed, but if you look at the direction of travel from business suits via police style uniforms to military lookalikes that is the way it is heading.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I know very very little about international law.

I was genuinely asking a question, not pretending to ask one while making a point; thanks again for answering it!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

> re. a new/re-branded parallel ECJ: That's like calling a vegetable by another name so a toddler will eat it... is that where we're at?

Probably. I don't see how they bridge the gap May has needlessly created otherwise. Pathetic really.
jk

In reply to RomTheBear:

So, before the UK joined the EU which court had ultimate responsibility for migrants rights?

In reply to baron:

The UK courts, in most cases, in the cases where they have access to it, as it is currently the case for non-EU migrants.

The only difference is that EU citizens currently have rights protected by the EU treaties. As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.
You don't seem to get that somehow.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I get it.
The EU throws in a couple of demands - migrants and payments - in order to avoid beginining talks on trade.
The UK ties itself in knots trying to find a compromise instead of demanding trade talks begin immediately.
The EU still has realised that the UK is leaving and continues its arrogant stance.

In reply to baron: alternatively, based on facts, the EU is ready to get going on exit discussions which it is necessary to deal with before setting up a new deal. The U.K. Is not because of internal posturing.

In reply to wbo:
The UK election is indeed putting talks on the back burner as will the French and German ones.
It is possible to simply leave the EU without any negotiations as in an exit.
What is there to talk about except the future?

In reply to baron:

My god, you really have lost all common sense haven't you. Stay int he little fantasy world you constructed for yourself in your head and avoid reality. That's probably best.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Just because you gave an opinion, it doesn't mean it's the only opinion. Your insults sum up your credibility you odious prick.

In reply to Gone for good:

He's been off topic and peddling falsehoods for the whole thread. Nothing to do with opinions. I can discuss with people of different opinions willing to have a reasonable evidence-based discussion. In his case, it's probably better to just leave him in his post factual world.

In reply to RomTheBear:
He, is, I presume, me?
Off topic and peddling falsehoods are one way of putting it.
I prefer 'engaging in an internet discussion where one or more parties might hold differing views.
Post factual world - what does that mean?
I really wish people would speak English!

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm talking about basic preparations that would put us on the same footing as the other 27 states we are going to be negotiating with

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-...

Responding to the Brussels report, one senior diplomat from an eastern European state, said: “It came as a surprise to me that the UK was unable to monitor comings and goings – they will have to find a workable solution quickly.”

We would know if these basic preparation were happening, it would require public engagement.


Talks will commence after the UK election, which I think we'd all agree does make sense.
Pre-article 50 talks would have undermined the representative democracy of the UK and the EU. If you remember article 50 was delayed until our own parliament had voted on it. The EU needed article 50 before they could gather representatives of the 27 states to decide their approach. This cosy chat among Euro elites that you seem to think should have happened is exactly the sort of undemocratic practice you accuse the EU of...... hoisted by your own petard Pat!

In reply to RomTheBear:

>As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.You don't seem to get that somehow.

Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

We have , as far as I know, not allowed this for others coming in from any Non EU countries, we should either do the same for everyone from all countries, or not do it for anyone.

No preferential treatment just because of where you come from, everyone treated the same under one set of rules,that is fair.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Money grabbing Ambulance chasers you mean.

In reply to Jim C:


Good question but you weren't kicking off about the drip drip drip erosion of your rights in the name of curbing immigration before brexit so I guess you didn't care that much.


LOL. Good luck with that if you don't want to be living in a dystopian tax haven a decade from now. Perhaps you do. I really wish this were a case of your mess, you clean it up but you've dropped us all in it.
jk

In reply to Jim C:

They won't have more rights. They currently have less rights and will still have less rights.
The only right they'll have that you won't have is that they'll still be able to work and live freely in 27 countries, and you won't. But sorry to say, that is very much self inflicted.

Frankly I'm not too sure why you wouldn't want those already here to stay, what have they done to you ? What harm would it do to you if they were allowed to carry on as before ?



That's simply because we've not had any reciprocal agreement with other countries.

It will be the case that for new EU migrants they'll fall under the standard immigration system.

However you don't have to be a genius to understand that if 4 millions + people already settled were to suddenly fall back to the standard immigration policy of their respective host countries, it would wreak havoc in society, break up families, shut down businesses, and create mass movement of population. It would also be very unfair to millions of people who came in good faith under the provision of the EU treaties and built their lives here.
Besides, I don't see what anybody has to gain from being nasty to these people anyway:

In reply to Jim C:


So why did Commonwealth citizens get a vote in the EU referendum when EU citizens did not? If there was one set of rules there'd have been 3 million more votes for Remain.

In reply to Jim C:


Do you not see the difference between people who've settled here, completely legally, and not applied for citizenship because they simply didn't need to, and people who want to come here in the future, who know the requirements and can prepare to meet them?

I don't want to restrict EU citizens coming here in the future, but at least doing so doesn't drop people in it, they can plan for it and either manage to come or not. Those already here face being uprooted from their lives, which is quite different from just not being allowed to come in the first place.

To my mind, people already here long-term should either just be granted citizenship (unless they've committed serious crimes), or at least be given assistance so that thay aren't tripped up by requirements they never knew they'd have to meet.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Hmmmm . . . would that cost possibly be the rights of British citizens in the EU?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Got the wrong guy there Rom I said, I was happy for people to stay as long as they are not criminals, or here illegally. The rules for the future though needs to change.

I get a bit fed up with being painted as something I'm not. I simply want everyone who comes to the UK to come in under the same rules. Those rules will have to be modified so that we take only those that the country needs, and in the numbers with the skills that the economy needs at that time, and the services can cope with.
( apart from asylum seekers , they are a different case)

Those migrants ( from anywhere) that are here already, if they are not doing anything criminal- or have entered illegally , should stay if they want to.
I'm not out to hate anyone on here, or even insult anyone.
( if you can find such posts from me I'm happy to apologise to whomever- Brexiteers , Remoaners etc don't count as insults, they are just useful labels
Being called a racist , does count as an insult though.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I think you should ask David Cameron that question , he missed a trick there.

In reply to Jim C:


The problem is that 'here illegally' could mean not having private health insurance despite nobody ever mentioning it until after Brexit. The EU citizens in the UK need some protection from the EU because Theresa May can't be trusted, she's far too focussed on getting net immigration below 100,000 and that is never going to happen unless lots of people leave.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

given that is year on year, why would lots of people need to leave?

In reply to Jim C:


In that case, Jim, this is just crossed wires - you replied to Rom as below, perhaps giving the wrong impression:


That's what I was replying to, anyway.

(I really have no time for people who want to 'kick out the foreigners'; I merely disagree with those who want to change the rules to make it much harder for future EU incomers. I'm glad you're one of the latter, not the former.)

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Well, we'll see, but it looks near to impossible to get immigration down to under 100,000 per year just now, given that non-EEA immigration alone appears to be much higher than that, and May didn't seem to be able to deal with that when she was Home Secretary.

That being the case, to get net migration to those levels, we'd need to have a lot of people leaving.

In reply to Jim C:

What I am trying to make you understand us that if the rules for non-EEA citizens were to suddenly apply to EEA citizens the vast majority would have to leave or be deported. (this has nothing to do with the criminals and so on who can already be kicked out anyway under EU rules, and regularly are)
But you don't seem to get that hence the frustration. A lot of the comments on here seem to be based on a total ignorance of the immigration rules and policy of this country.

If you say you want existing EU residents to stay then they'll need a special arrangement, like it or not. For future migrants they'll have the same rules as anybody else, that's less of a problem because they'll know what they are getting into before coming (and for the vast majority they just won't bother)

In reply to Mike Stretford:

From the FT:

Nevertheless on Sunday Mr Davis gave some detail on how EU nationals living in the UK might be treated after Brexit, saying that the government wanted an agreement that “effectively freezes” their rights.

How on earth do you resolve the issue of the border with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland unless you know what our general borders policy is, what the customs agreement is, what our trade agreement is?
David Davis, Brexit secretary

“They’ll have the right to welfare, the right to healthcare, the right to pensions, as they would if they were permanent residents,” he said. “The only rights they wouldn’t have are those citizenship rights — the right to vote in a general election.”

EU citizens in the UK currently enjoy a wider range of rights than non-EU permanent residents, including those relating to recognition of their qualifications and receiving welfare payments from abroad. It is unclear from Mr Davis’s formulation whether the government will look to maintain such relative advantages for EU nationals.

The Brexit secretary added: “There will be an argument over the final detail … such as whether the European Court of Justice oversees their rights are we’ve left … We’ll have an argument about that.”

In reply to Postmanpat:
And you seriously believe anything these guys say ? It's cute.
I'll believe actions not words.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think he is showing his hand:

“They’ll have the right to welfare, the right to healthcare, the right to pensions, as they would if they were permanent residents,” he said. “The only rights they wouldn’t have are those citizenship rights — the right to vote in a general election.”

They want to create a special status - not permanent resident because permanent resident is a simple step away from citizen. The Tories concern is that the EU citizens resident in the UK never get the chance to vote because they know the consequence of that many pro-EU votes. And they'd quite like them to be scared to apply for permanent residence and citizenship in case they mess up their current status and get nasty 'prepare to leave' letters for some minor infringement like not having health insurance. They want them to gradually piss off, not all at once because that would be a nuisance but gradually by being step by step made to feel less welcome over a period of years.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
Twaddle. There is absolutely nothing in his comments to suggest that, or that EU citizens will not remain free to apply for and receive British citizenship.Tin foil hat stuff.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sure, they will be free to apply, but they'll need to use the 85 page form for permanent residence and take a chance of getting rejected on a technicality and asked to leave. Which is what is happening to 20-30% of applications now.

Why do you think he's proposing a special status instead of just offering permanent residence with no preconditions. He doesn't want them voting, he even said so. He knows that once the EU negotiations any special status can be gradually redefined and weakened.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
They can't vote in national elections now. My "permanent resident" wife can't either. The anomaly will not be that EU citizens cannot vote but that Commonwealth citizens can.

The whole point of what Davis is saying, to anyone without a tin foil balaclava, is that existing EU residents will fast tracked to permanent residency (possibly by immigration officials wearing nazi uniforms)

In reply to Postmanpat:


And

The UK would only look for an early agreement on migrants’ rights by “early autumn”, but would otherwise argue that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, he said.

The Brexit secretary added: “There will be an argument over the final detail … such as whether the European Court of Justice oversees their rights after we’ve left … We’ll have an argument about that.”

There's also going to a 'row of the summer' over the proposed timetable.

So it's safe to say there was never any chance of a quick deal on EU nationals rights, and it isn't the UK governments fault or the EUs. The people to blame for the plight of worried UK/EU nationals abroad, are those who voted for Brexit.

Bloomebrg reports more of it, with a tacit acceptance that the UK has the weaker negotiating hand

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-14/u-k-picks-new-fight-...

Britain is “very conscious of how they will use that time sequence to pressure us, and we’ll avoid that at every turn,” Davis said.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

The EU has refused to show willing so Davis has accepted that the issue cannot be discussed until the autumn. I am not sure that it is very inciteful to note that it is brexit that will likely change the status of residency. As you implicitly acknowledge, the EU is more than happy to exploit the issue for its own ends.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's isn't very insightful, it's fekkin obvious..... but it hasn't stopped people trying to pass the blame, including yourself!

I'm not sure about the EU refusing to show willing.... I remember they were keen for the UK to trigger Article 50 so we could all get on with things.


Do I? How so? Even Davis said EU nationals rights could be concluded 'early Autum', the last part of my post refers to Davis wanting the divorce bill and trade talks “packaged up together.”

In reply to Postmanpat:

He is specifically saying they will not be offered permanent residency, his words are 'as they would if they were permanent residents'. That makes it pretty clear the idea is to have a special category for EU citizen residents, if they use the current 'permanent resident' category it is too easy for them to get UK citizenship and vote.

I think we are falling into the same trap as when the Greeks elected Varoufakis et al thinking that if they put in a hardline government they would negotiate some sort of super deal with the EU. Not going to happen.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


On your basis nobody would ever vote for any change on anything (or indeed no change on anything) because it creates uncertainty for somebody. It's up to the negotiating parties to settle the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, not the voters.

If the UK has the "weaker hand" then presumably you infer that the EU is going to exploit its "stronger hand".

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Nonsense. If the details of the syntax suggest anything it is just that the status will not be exactly the same as the current status of a "permanent residence", which is blindingly obvious. There is no evidence or implication that will make it more difficult to get British citizenship, and as the Home Office has stated " no applicant was required to complete all 85 pages, and that it was working to make the process “quicker and easier”."

The bottom line is that the UK needs the EU citizens in the UK to stay or the economy will grind to a halt. It will also face a PR disaster if it is seen to be "ethnic cleansing" on a massive scale. Any government knows this and therefore has to find a way to keep them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
I like to think we have a stronger hand than the Greeks. But you are right, it is quite possible that, as Mr.V predicts, that the EU simply doesn't want a comprehensive deal except ion exactly their terms.
Interesting article by Wolfgang Munchau in the FT saying that if you read the German press you would understand the the UK is still quite likely to stay in the EU. Possibly that is part of the EU's game. Make it so hard to leave that we stay. "You can check out but you can never leave".

In reply to Postmanpat:


Really? My suggestion that people accept the consequence of their vote.......will stop people voting! Blimey, not sure what to say to that.


No argument there. In some circumstance, were the voter was offered an unrealistic 'moon on the stick', it may be a fairly 'blunt' settlement.

> If the UK has the "weaker hand" then presumably you infer that the EU is going to exploit its "stronger hand".

Yeah on the issue of trade and the UK s divorce bill, as I said even Davis seems happy nationals rights can be sorted 'early Autumn'.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know why you put so much store by Mr V. He got sacked for messing up the negotiations and costing the Greek economy billions when they could least afford it.

His Hotel California quote sums up his failure. By the time Varoufakis had done showboating, Europe was prepared for Greece to 'check out and leave'. Syriza chose what they believe to be the least worse option, and stayed.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

>
Only because he makes an articulate presentation of views I share but is not a conventional Tory leaver.

In reply to Postmanpat:


There are some striking similarities.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Do you not think that by the time he'd done showboating the EU were very clear that Greece had no intention whatsoever of leaving? They weren't prepared for Greece to leave (either the EU or the Euro), they just knew there was no chance of it happening.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Well, yes. They share many views on the EU!

In reply to thomasadixon: It was fairly well reported at the time

https://www.ft.com/content/9c124930-1f4a-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79

In reply to Postmanpat:
I was thinking of the hubris and the bullshit. I hope the Tory leavers are better negotiators. Poker tactics aren't appropriate when the situation is transparent, the other side is pretty competent, and the consequencies are people livelihoods.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
I recall the reporting I believe, and it's easy to say "fine, go" in the knowledge that has no chance of happening.

Paywall on that link, so can't see what you're saying was reported.

In reply to Postmanpat:

How much would you like to bet that access to citizenship for EU citizens will be made much harder ?
By the way this is already the case thanks to Teresa May, you may dismiss it as tinfoil hat but this is already an entrenched principle in UK law that EU citizens have a harder path to citizenship than non-EU, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't take this further, especially if they guarantee residence for 3 millions of them.
If they all eventually get citizenship the tories are finished, it is simple electoral mathematics.

Why do you think they've not simplified the permanent residence process (EEA3) and instead are telling people to not apply ? That is simply because this status leads to citizenship.
I suspect they'll come up with a different status that doesn't lead to citizenship.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I suspect they'll come up with a different status that doesn't lead to citizenship.

As the EU has said they are adopting a one for all and all for one approach, can we expect that UK citizens ( remember them) living in EU countries will all be given the same status irrespective of where they live , and that they be will they all have an identical process to obtain citizenship in the EU country of their choice should they wish to do so?

Our priorities are to deal with all citizens rights soonest, but our first priority must be to look after our own citizens rights first, and not unilaterally grant rights to EU citizens that are then not given to ours.

In reply to Jim C:


But why can't we do this as its the morally right thing to do? not only that but it puts us on higher moral ground in the rest of the negotiations.

I just don't understand why people want our country to use people as negotiating chips - it's just not British

In reply to balmybaldwin:

>I just don't understand why people want our country to use people as negotiating chips - it's just not British
>
Because it would leave UK residents of the UK "on their own" which would not be a very moral thing to do.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
When a group sends malware out and demands money to fix it , do you trust them to give you access again?

When a group demands up to 100 million before they will even negotiate with you , do you pay up and trust them?

They're are no signs from the EU that taking a moral stance will buy us any favours. Even if there was a majority of countries that thought that our moral stance was worth rewarding, they all have to agree, so there is little chance of this working.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No it wouldn't it puts them in exactly the same place they are now with vague promises and the government promissing to back them. Unilateral action from the UK will most likely shame Europe into a reciprocal reaction

In reply to Jim C:

This is about people living and working in the UK so for a start it gives us favour in those peoples eyes - people that are valuable to our society and economy.

Its not just about European countries, it would also be seen as moral by the rest of the world.

But so what if it doesn't help with Europe? it's still the right thing to do for both the UK and the Europeans that are currently living here

In reply to Jim C:


Yes, it's bad for business if they don't.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Lol. I've got bridge I can sell you...

In reply to Jim C:

Sorry to say but you are talking nonsense again.
There are already different requirements and processes to obtain citizenship in various EU countries. Some even don't allow dual citizenship. This has nothing to do with reciprocal rights or even the brexit negotiations.

The question is now whether EU nationals in the UK should have a harder path to citizenship than non-EU citizens, or if the same rules should apply to everybody.
It seems very odd to me that you would support a discriminatory system against EU citizens given that you said earlier you wanted the same rules for everybody. Your positions are contradictory.

In reply to Jim C:


It seems to me the EU is simply asking that we pay what we owe, this is just the basics, if we don't even pay what we committed and what we owe how can the EU, or in fact, any other country, trust us for any future deal ?
They are talks of a gross bill of 100bn but of course the net bill will be much lower.

The liabilities of the UK towards the EU and vice versa will have to be settled, this will have to be scientifically calculated, I suspect there will be much negotiation going on around the accounting rules used, but at the end of the day if the UK just doesn't pay what it owes, it will seriously harm our international standing and credibility, in fact this could have pretty serious consequences on the pound and the ability of the UK to borrow on the international markets.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Do you think that anyone who applies should get in, by virtue of just applying?

In reply to Big Ger:


I think we should drop the whole stupid idea before things really turn to sh*t.

But yes, if they are already in the UK they should be offered UK citizenship, the same sort of deal as an Irish person with a UK and Irish passport, not some bogus not-quite-right-to-remain with no voting rights.

And UK citizens in the EU should get the same deal, UK citizenship plus the offer of citizenship in whatever EU country they are resident.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You seem pretty happy to pay anything the EU deems we owe, I think we know where your loyalties lie.

I want a fair deal for everyone, but we must look after our own interests first and not wait for 27 other countries to agree what is best for us.

If , under A50, there are legal obligations to pay a set amount of money for a limited period , then we invoked A50 and we should pay what is legally enforceable .

We need to understand what that figure is( if anything) and if we pay out we also should get our share of the assets back as previously stated.

If neither are a legal obligation, then they are just obstacles to getting a future deal, and we should forget bills and asset rebates and get on with securing citizen's rights and trade arrangements.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

With no discrimination at all?

So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?

In reply to Big Ger:

Giving citizenship to all of them is of course unreasonable. And the EU is certainly not asking for that.
However I don't see any reason why it should be harder for EU citizens to get UK citizenship than for non-EU citizens. It's already hard and expensive enough to be honest.

In reply to Jim C:


The EU is running this, we do things their way or they just let the clock run while the UK gets closer and closer to the cliff edge of four or five years with no trade agreements at all with anybody while we desperately try and negotiate new ones.

You don't need to be a genius to understand this, the Greeks tried electing a government to take a hard line in negotiations with the EU and got precisely nowhere - except turmoil, turmoil a change of government and climb down.

In reply to Big Ger:


Not only Romanian beggars but French Onion sellers, Italian ice cream vendors and Swedish alcoholics: the full set of prejudicial national stereotypes. They'd be doing us a favour if they took British citizenship and injected a little bit of Europe into our politics.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


The moral high ground is worth diddly squat in negotiations.
In fact it hinders the side that takes the high ground.
Remember the politicians on the other side will want to get as much as they can whilst giving away as little as possible - and they're definitely NOT British.

In reply to fred99:

I guess the issue here is that the UK government insisted on a reciprocal deal for EU citizens, but at the same time they do not like the implications of a reciprocal deal.
If there is a reciprocal deal then of course this means every country has to have the same rule, interpreted the same way.
Somehow the UK government would want to have a common rule but still be free to interpret them as they wish. That would not be a reciprocal deal anymore, that would just be a face saving political quick-win with little practical value.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


In Germany Pegida rallies attract thousands while EDL barely scrape above a hundred. We have Boris the buffoon while Italy kept Berlusconi in power for 9 years. Nick Griffin and the NF have slimed away under a stone somewhere while France narrowly avoided a Le Pen presidency.
I'd rather Europe kept their politics to themselves thanks.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But they're European. They burn down asylum seeker's hostels in an enlightened and inclusive way.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I may have missed where it was proposed for it to be harder for EU citizens.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So I'll take it you have no answer to my question then.

Here it is again, in case you fancy a serious attempt;

( if they are already in the UK they should be offered UK citizenship)

With no discrimination at all?

So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?

In reply to Big Ger:

It is already the case, courtesy of Teresa May.
Now the danger is that it becomes worse, I'm not saying they are suggesting it, but this seems only logical they will be aiming for it, and they have given clues that it may be the case.

The tories are terrified that all these EU citizens end up getting citizenship and lock them out of power. They are actively dissuading EU citizens from applying for EEA3 permanent residence, and go to great length and spend lots of money and time to reject as many applications as possible. Why, one may ask ? Because this leads to citizenship.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Narrowly avoided by a very slim 34 points margin. Lol.
And in the UK, we have the tories, who basically killed off UKIP by becoming UKIP.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Come off it Rom ,from Holland to Hungary and all points in between, the continent is full of real right wing nut jobs with real popular backing.
Do you really see Teresa May as cut from the same cloth as Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders?
... yes , narrowly avoided ,you had a choice of 2 candidates and one of them was front national. That is way too close a call in my book.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Your evidence for all of that? I'm not saying your wrong, but I'd like some meat on the bones.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Cut from the same cloth ? I would say she is arguably worse.
Teresa May's policies would put her at the right of Lepen in France.
May I point out that the only parties that are telling us in Europe that brexit is a great idea are the far right parties.
I followed the French election, watched the debates, Lepen "arguments" are exactly the same as the one made in the in the UK by Teresa May and her clique.


Yes there was two candidates, and they made a very clear choice. 34 points is not too close to call or narrowly avoided, it's a landslide.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, Theresa May when she was at the home office introduced changes that effectively make the requirement for citizenship 6 years of permanent for EU citizens, and they have to go through the EEA3 process (a bureaucratic wall) which demands a lot more evidence than the ILR process.
Non EU citizens need only to have been in the UK for 5 years and the process is simpler.

In the future, I'd be very dupeuses if they don't try to make it even more difficult for EU citizens to obtain citizenship. It would be electoral suicide, simple mathematics really.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Well Rom with your god like , all knowing wisdom I'm sure you knew what the election result would be all along. However, back down to earth, among the mere mortals, lots of respected commentators were seriously worried about the outcome. The 2 French expats I know both told me they could see an FN victory.
So yes, with that weight of opinion it seemed scarily close. Remind me , did you actually call the result before hand?

As to Le Pen actually being to the left of TM, can you really imagine May spouting off about Muslims and calling for them to be deported en masse as Marine has on many occasions?

In reply to Stichtplate:


No I didn't. I in fact myself said several time on these forums that I was very scared of a lepen win.
And I was proven wrong.


So was I. And I was proven wrong.


Yes it seemed, but it wasn't.


Has she ?
I suggest you look at lepen programme on immigration. A lot of the policies either have already been introduced in the UK, or Teresa May wants to introduce them.

But for the most part the U.K. Immigration system already effectively ticks pretty much all the boxes of marine Lepen programme on immigration. The reason we don't have as much of a far right in the UK, is simply because here it's called the right.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Ok , so the election result was a relief ,but the possibility of an FN victory was scarily close. That was my point. As for how far to the right TM will turn out to be , I'm really not sure, but I imagine we're all going to find out over the next few months.
What I was attempting to get at in the original post was simply that UK parties and the electorate as a whole are less extreme than those on the continent, both now and historically.
...oh, and you get a like for admitting you were wrong about something.

In reply to Stichtplate:

It just wasn't close. All the polls were showing this was pretty much a mathematical near impossibility for a year. It just that after the trauma of brexit and Trump nobody wanted to believe it and nobody trusted the data.


That, my friend, is just a sweet delusion. The UK electorate and parties are no less extreme than any other European country. It's just that the mainstream parties in the UK would be considered far right anywhere else in the EU.

I'll say again, look at Lepen's programme on immigration. The UK immigration system pretty much does it all already.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Well I'll just keep my sweet delusions and you can keep your sweet European beacon of hope.
Home in the not too distant past of fascist dictatorships in Germany, Italy , Spain ,Austria ,Hungary , Romania and Greece. Of course many of those countries flipped over to communist dictatorships soon after, so I guess it evens out.

That's the continent for you, a land of moderation.
Britain on the other hand... full of nutters.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh Ok, thanks,

It's five years in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, so that extra year could be argued to be a bit of an imposition, but a bit meh....

In reply to Stichtplate:

There is no rules anywhere that Britain is somehow a land of moderation and Europe the land of the fascists. If you think it can happen in the UK then yes you are totally deluded.
Brits are no different from all the others, no better nor worse. We have exactly the same nutters.
As I said before, many of the policies far right parties promote in Europe are a reality over here.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The history books don't agree. Maybe check with Ice doctor though , they could all be Tory propaganda I suppose?

In reply to Big Ger:


My fear is that it becomes way worse. There is a big incentive purely for electoral reasons to make sure these 3 millions EU citizens never get to vote. This is enough to lock the tories out of power for a long long time.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I suggest you first read the history books before you talk about it, because apparently you haven't.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Sweet Christ Rom , now , not only are Brits irredeemably right wing but our books are biased too! I really don't know how you've put up with us for so long , and yet you persevere in trying to put us straight. You have the patience of a saint and my personal gratitude.
Night night.

Edit: awww , you've edited out the bit about our books being biased

In reply to Stichtplate:

They are. To be fair they all are, anywhere you go in Europe, but the problem is particularly acute in Britain.
I edited as I didn't want to start a tangential argument, but if you drag me into it, no problem, this is very well documented.

In reply to RomTheBear:


"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

In reply to Big Ger:


I was pretty clear.
a. We shouldn't leave at all.
b. If we do we should offer every EU citizen legally resident in the UK on the day Article 50 was declared UK citizenship, the only check being they were legally resident on that day.

Yes, you can make all kinds of prejudicial arguments about beggars and fruit pickers or criminals but what's the point. They are already here. The country is not falling apart. Keep it simple and we won't need to hire thousands more home office apparatchiks and more importantly the 99.9% of the 3 million EU citizens who aren't a problem will be made to feel welcome.

The UK would benefit from 3 million generally younger people from countries with written constitutions, proportional representation, no royals and no house of lords having an influence on UK politics. It would help balance out the Tory pensioner march back to the 1950s.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Hard lines on that one.


So, regardless of age, criminal history, skills, education, ability to speak English, willingness to work, housing, effect on schools and hospitals, as long as you're here "from the EU", then you get a free British citizenship and full British rights.

I'm glad people like you are in a minority.

In reply to Big Ger:

>So, regardless of age, criminal history, skills, education, ability to speak English, willingness to work, housing, effect on schools and hospitals, as long as you're here "from the EU", then you get a free British citizenship and full British rights.I'm glad people like you are in a minority.

We are talking about people who are already here, it is just preserving the status quo. Currently they are here as citizens, why not preserve their status as citizens.

Your position is way far to the right of even the Tories. The Tories are talking about some variant of right to remain. The main difference with offering citizenship is they'd get to vote and be made to feel welcome.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



You are talking about granting them extra rights and abilities.


Currently they are here as visitors.


My position is that anyone wanting to remain in the UK should be able to show that they are not criminals, a willingness to participate, contribute and uphold the laws of the land.


They can be made to feel welcome without granting them the right to vote, and giving full citizenship.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Here are the 6 new requirements to acquire Australian citizenship:

All applicants are required to pass a stand-alone English test, involving reading, writing, listening and speaking;
Applicants are required to have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least four years (instead of one year at present);
Citizenship test will be strengthened with new and more meaningful questions that assess an applicant's understanding of - and commitment to - shared values and responsibilities;
Applicants will be required to show the steps they have taken to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community. Examples would include evidence of employment, membership of community organisations and school enrolment for all eligible children.
An applicant can fail the citizenship test only three (at present there is no limit to the number of times an applicant can fail the test);
An automatic fail for applicants will be introduced who cheat during the citizenship test.

Now, what would you object to if the UK were to adopt these criteria?